Challenging the Rollback of Humanitarian Parole Programs
Humanitarian parole programs afford noncitizens the ability to seek safety in the U.S. on a temporary basis. While parole status is temporary, parolees may apply for other types of immigration status if eligible. Many have applied for asylum, temporary protected status, and other forms of status adjustment. Parolees may also apply for employment authorization.
For the last 70 years, parole programs have been a well-established fixture in U.S. immigration policies. Since President Eisenhower’s creation of a parole program for Hungarians fleeing a Soviet crackdown in 1956, every administration has used the parole authority to permit large numbers of noncitizens to come to the U.S. when other immigration pathways were unavailable, insufficiently expeditious, or otherwise inadequate.
Human Rights First and co-counsel the Justice Action Center have filed suit challenging the Trump administration’s attempts to 1) terminate, suspend, and/or curtail humanitarian parole programs enmasse, 2) prematurely terminate the lawful status of those already granted parole, and 3) deny parolees the ability to access relevant benefits under humanitarian parole programs as provided for by law. They include Uniting for Ukraine, Operation Allies Welcome, parole programs for nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV), Family Reunification Parole (FRP), and the Central American Minors Program.
Contact your members of Congress and urge them to reject measures that terrorize and harm vulnerable people seeking safety.
Timeline
On February 28, 2025, Human Rights First and the Justice Action Center commenced this lawsuit in the District Court of Massachusetts to challenge the termination of humanitarian parole processes and the indefinite suspension of adjudication of immigration benefits applications filed by parole beneficiaries of these processes.
On March 17, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint to name additional plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Stay.
On March 21, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification.
On March 27, 2025, Plaintiffs filed 1) a Second Amended Complaint adding parties and claims addressing Defendants’ formal termination of parole processes for Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan (CHNV) nationals, 2) a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Stay seeking to block DHS’s mass truncation of grants of CHNV parole, and 3) a Supplemental Motion for Class Certification.
On April 14, 2025, the District Court entered orders 1) certifying a nationwide class as to those subject to the Trump administration’s termination of CHNV parole processes, and 2) partially granting Plaintiffs’ request for a stay of the termination of CHNV parole.
On April 18, 2025, Defendants appealed the District Court’s April 14 stay order and a few days later, moved for a stay of the order pending appeal.
On May 5, 2025, the First Circuit denied Defendants’ stay request pending the appeal.
On May 28, 2025, the District Court partially granted Plaintiffs’ March 17 request for a stay. It also partially granted Plaintiffs’ supplemental request for class certification and modified its prior order.
On May 30, 2025, following Defendants’ appeal of the First Circuit’s May 5th ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Defendants’ request for a stay while the appeal on the merits of the order was pending. Defendants also filed a Motion to Dismiss with the District Court on May 30, 2025.
On June 16, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to the Mass Truncation of CHNV Parole.
On September 12, 2025, the First Circuit vacated the District Court’s order granting a stay as to termination of CHNV parole.
On November 10, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to the mass truncation of CHNV parole.
On December 29, 2025, Plaintiffs submitted 1) a request for leave to file a third amended complaint, 2) an emergency motion seeking a TRO, preliminary injunction, and/or stay of Defendants’ truncation of family reunification parole, and 3) a request to modify the class definition.
In The News
“Dem State AGs Back Preserving Biden-Era Parole Programs.” Ali Sullivan, Law360. March 25, 2025
“Judge weighs lawsuit on Trump move to revoke legal status for a half-million migrants.” Antonio Maria Delgado, The Miami Herald. March 25, 2025
On January 9, 2026, a hearing was held on Plaintiffs’ December 29 requests. The District Court granted Plaintiffs leave to file a supplemental complaint during the hearing.
On January 10, 2026, the District Court granted Plaintiffs’ request to modify the class definition and their request for a TRO.
On January 23, 2026, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Supplemented Second Amended Complaint.
On January 24, 2026, the District Court entered an order granting the request for a stay of the en masse truncation of family reunification parole with the Court issuing its memorandum the next day.
On January 30, 2026, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Supplemented Complaint.
On February 3, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Stay on enforcement of the USCIS December 2, 2025 Policy Memorandum as it pertains to the processing of benefit requests by class members.
